Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Larney v Johannson [2013] NSWCA 409 Hearing dates: 12 November 2013 Decision date: 09 December 2013 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [14];
Emmett JA at [21]Decision: 1. Leave to appeal be granted.
2. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: APPEAL - civil - Dividing Fences Act 1991 - whether power under Act to order removal of fence - whether "fencing work" includes removal of fence - whether proper notice under s 11 was served by appellant owner requiring adjoining respondent owner to contribute to removal of fence erected by respondent owner - where respondent owner who erected fence initially served notices on appellant requiring contribution but then erected fence without seeking contribution - where respondent owner's fence determined to be a sufficient dividing fence - where appellant owner purported to apply under Act to remove fence Legislation Cited: Crown Lands Act 1989
Dividing Fences Act 1991
Fences Dividing Fences Act 1988
Local Government Act 1993
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 101(2)(r)Cases Cited: Alwiah v Watts [2004] NSWSC 948
Larney v Johannson [2012] NSWSC 1297Texts Cited: Digest of Justinian 10.1
Justinian's Institutes 4.17.6
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Dividing Fences Report 59, December 1988 - Community Law Reform Program: Dividing FencesCategory: Principal judgment Parties: Ismail Larney (Appellant)
Angela Johannson (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
RS Angyal SC with D Accoto (Appellant)
Hall Partners (Appellants)
P Blackburn-Hart SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Fox O'Brien (Respondent)
File Number(s): CA 12/283308 Decision under appeal
- Citation:
- Larney v Johannson [2012] NSWSC 1297
- Date of Decision:
- 2012-08-14 00:00:00
- Before:
- Adams J
- File Number(s):
- 2012/72116
Judgment
MEAGHER JA: The Dividing Fences Act 1991 provides for the apportionment between adjoining owners of the cost of dividing fences. By s 6 it creates a liability of an adjoining owner to contribute to the carrying out of "fencing work" in circumstances where there is no "sufficient dividing fence". Part 3 sets out the procedure for determining the existence and extent of that liability. It provides by s 11(1) that an adjoining owner may require the other owner to contribute to the carrying out of fencing work by serving a notice to that effect on the other owner. Section 11(5) describes circumstances in which an adjoining owner is not liable to contribute for particular "fencing work". They include, subject to exceptions not presently relevant, that work is carried out before a notice under s 11(1) has been given.
The Act also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes as to the nature and extent of "fencing work" which is the subject of a notice requiring contribution, and as to the respective liabilities of the adjoining owners to contribute to the cost of it. In the event that owners cannot agree as to those matters, on the application of either of them under s 12 a local land board constituted under the Crown Lands Act 1989 may make orders under s 14 directed to determining…
Continue reading Larney v Johannson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Larney v Johannson [2013] NSWCA 409
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the *Dividing Fences Act 1991* conferred power to order the removal of a fence, and whether the definition of "fencing work" under the Act encompassed the removal of a fence. Additionally, the Court considered whether the appellant had served proper notice under section 11 of the Act, requiring the respondent to contribute to the removal of the fence, particularly in circumstances where the respondent had initially served notices for contribution but then proceeded to erect the fence without seeking the appellant's contribution. The respondent's fence had been determined to be a sufficient dividing fence.
The Court of Appeal determined that the *Dividing Fences Act 1991* did not grant power to order the removal of a fence. It reasoned that the Act's provisions, including the definition of "fencing work," were directed towards the construction, repair, and replacement of dividing fences, not their demolition. The Court found that the appellant's application to remove the fence did not fall within the scope of the Act. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant had not served a proper notice under section 11 for the removal of the fence, as such an action was not contemplated by the Act.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal be granted.
2. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.